2. Teaching of Jesus. — Everywhere Jesus de- mands reality. It is the pure in heart wlio see God (Mt 5®). It is the condition of spiritual vision. If the eye be single, the whole body shall be full of light (6"^). Jesus calls for truth of heart. ' There is a truth which lies behind the recognition of particular truths. It is the basis of all right beliefs.' ' Sincerum est nisi vas quodcunque in- fundis acescit' (Horace, Ep. i. 2. 54). Those who receive the revelation which Jesus brings are likened to babes (yTjTTiots) (Mt IP^). Only those who become as little children can enter into tlie Kingdom (18^). It is the singleness of the child, his truth of heart, and freedom from ulterior motives, that are praised. In the life that is in the Kingdom there must be no confusion of ends ; it must be perfect (reXeios), as the Father is perfect (5^^). It is the unpurged mind that mis.ses the vision. If the soul is divided, the profession of the lips will be of no avail (7-^). Words must not be idle (12'*) {dpybv), without any correspondence in inward thought and outward action. Words must be the 'incarnation of thought.' Nothing must intervene between the mind of the speaker and his word. Oaths are condemned as likely to take from the severe demands of truthful speech. The yea must be yea, the nay, nay (5^^). An oath lowers the value of normal speech. In all other departments of life there must be the same absence of duplicity. There cannot be two masters (G^'*). The disciple must seek first the Kingdom (6^^), and must not be over-anxious for food and raiment. He must not only be wise as a serpent, but sincere, simple (d/cepatos) (10^^) as a dove (cf. Ph 2'^). He must worsliip in spirit and in truth (Jn 4^''). It Avas this simplicity that Jesus found in the disciples whom He chose ; like Nathanael, they were Israelites without guile (I'"), iv (p 56Xos
Literature. — W. Bright, Morality in Doctrine, 220; G. Matheson, Leaves for Quiet Hours, 10 ; W. G. Rutherford, Eeij of Knowledge, 40 ; G. H. Morrison, Flood-Tide, 22 ; R. M. Pope, Poetry of the Upward Way, 29.
E. Shillito. SINGING.— See Music.
SINLESSNESS.— ' The sinlessness of Jesus' is a phrase which only imperfectly indicates the ground it is intended to cover. It is too negative. ' The sinless perfection of Jesus' would be a more adequate phrase. But ' the sinlessness of Jesus ' has an attractive sound ; it is the title of a book — that of Ullmann cited below — which may be called classical ; and it would be uuAvise to displace it from the position of honour it occupies, although we must use it with the understanding that it means more than it says. It is not to be con-
founded with the errorlessness of Jesus. Indeed, the very latest writer on the subject (Max Meyer, op. cit. infr.) refers with the utmost frankness, if we ought not rather to say thoughtlessness, to the mistakes of Jesus (p. 9), while vigorously defending His sinlessness. But on this subject see the nuich more profoundly considered judgments of Dorner (Glaubenslehre, ii. p. 472 f".) and Tholuck {Das AT im NT, p. 24 ff. ).
An argument for the sinlessness of Jesus has been elaborated by Ullmann from the prevalence of holiness in Christendom.
Wherever Christianity exists — thus the argument proceeds — there holiness also is to be seen. Wliile exceptionally advanced holiness may be of rare occurrence in any society, there is not a country, or even a town or village, in which Christianity is established but there will be found in it numbers of persons striving after a holy life. In every Christian congregation there are at least a few sisecimens of character so striking that even those who are themselves destitute of religious aspiration acknowledge them to be no earthly products, but to have a heavenly origin ; while more sympathetic observers will say that to them the sight of one such holy person has been a more convincing argument for the reality and the blessedness of re- ligious experience than all the verbal arguments they have ever listened to. For this phenomenon is specifically Christian. It is true that heathenism has its so-called holy men — that is, persons separated from the world and devoted to God — but it requires little discrimination to perceive the difference between an Indian fakir and a Christian saint. The classical nations produced many a splendid specimen of human nature ; but the best of them were essentially different from those whom Chris- tendom would recognize as holy. E\en Socrates, as every one must know who has read the Memorabilia of Xenophon, was not hoi}' in the Christian sense, but, at certain points, very much the reverse. In what precisely the difference consists it may not be easy to say, but it is quite easy to feel, holiness being, like beauty and some more of the finest things, in the last resort indescribable. But whatever may be its exact definition, holiness is, at all events, essentiallj' Christian. Those who are possessed of it would acknowledge that the,y owe it to Christ, their communion with God being based on the sense of reconciliation through Christ, and their benevolence towards men due to their adoption of His views as to the dignit}' and destiny of human nature. They are imitators of Him, yet they always know Him to be infinitely above them. Here, then, is the argument : ' If Christ is the source of holiness in others, and if He stands far above the holiest of those who derive it from Him, it is a reasonable inference that He must Himself be sinless ' (op. cit. pt. ii. ch. 2, § 3).